broker_sync_positions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses that data is normalized and stamped with an as_of timestamp. It says nothing about authentication to brokerages, whether cached or live data is returned, latency, rate limits, or what happens when a brokerage connection is stale or broken.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is the same sentence duplicated verbatim around an em dash, which doubles length without adding information. Half the text is pure waste, and no structure is used to front-load anything beyond the scope claim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, single-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the definition gives the minimum viable picture: it reads positions across brokerages in a normalized form. Missing details on broker connection state, failure behavior, and result shape keep it from being complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a single user_id parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description adds no format, ID-type, or scoping detail for user_id, which is the correct baseline 3 for a fully documented single-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The stance 'Real positions across all of a user's connected brokerages, one normalized schema, stamped as_of' states a specific verb and resource and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like broker_sync_balances and broker_sync_transactions by scope and normal form. It is clear but never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to broker_sync_balances or broker_sync_transactions when the agent wants a different view of the same account. The agent must infer scope from the phrase 'positions' alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.